Sexual Anarchy: America's Demise?

ALEXANDRIA, La. (BP)--When it comes to all things pertaining to sexuality and sexual expression, liberals advocate for nothing less than sexual anarchy. A litany of the left’s positions affirms that the previous statement is an ironclad truth.

The left views traditional marriage as nothing more than an anachronism, sex outside of marriage as sacrosanct and any and all sexual expression worthy of acceptance. If the left does accept any boundaries in respect to sexuality, the lines are hopelessly blurred by post-modern subjectivity.

Those who embrace a hedonistic ethic of unfettered and unrestrained sexual freedom insist that sexuality belongs to the realm of the private and the personal. Consensual behavior, in which no one is harmed, is simply none of society’s business, they say.

Are liberals correct? Is sexuality simply a private matter with no consequences for society? On this subject, as with most others, the left could not be more wrong. One thing the left rarely considers when delineating their dogma is unintended consequences.

"The law of unintended consequences pushes us ceaselessly through the years, permitting no pause for perspective,” observed Richard Schickel, film critic for Time magazine.

Schickel is correct about the ever-present reality of unintended consequences, which the left continues to miss. However, he is wrong about the inability to gain perspective -- especially when it comes to the impact collective sexuality has on a society.

One of the best ways to gain perspective concerning unintended consequences is through the lens of history. And history has much to say about the impact of collective sexuality on a society.

British anthropologist J.D. Unwin studied the sexual behaviors of 86 cultures through 5,000 years of history. His findings were published in 1940 under the title "The Sexual and Economic Foundations of a New Society." Unwin’s observations were -- and are -- sobering.

Unwin’s observations ran counter to one of the most influential thinkers of his day, Sigmund Freud. Freud maintained that sexual repression was the root cause of a society's ills. Unwin found the opposite to be true. Unwin’s findings showed that cultures that observed a strict sexual ethic -- especially valuing pre-nuptial chastity and post-nuptial monogamy -- thrived and flourished. However, those societies that rejected sexual restraint withered and died.

"Expansive energy" was the term Unwin used to describe a culture that was growing and healthy. Concerning this reality he observed, "Expansive energy has never been displayed by a society that inherited a modified monogamy or a form of polygamy." What Unwin discovered is that once a society ceased to value marriage and sexual restraint, it began to decline.

He added, "In human records, there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence."

In other words, once a generation abandons a sexual ethic that values sexual restraint and monogamy, the following generation begins to wane culturally. It is then only a matter of time before society shrivels and dies.

Concerning his study, Unwin made a chilling observation. He wrote, "The evidence is that in the past a class has risen to a position of political dominance because of its great energy and that at the period of its rising, its sexual regulations have always been strict. It has retained its energy and dominated the society so long as its sexual regulations have demanded both pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence. … I know of no exceptions to these rules."

No exceptions to these rules. Once a society utterly rejects a sexual ethic that values restraint and monogamy, its days are numbered.

America is in the midst of casting off all sexual restraint. Sexual license is celebrated daily in the popular media. While marriage is still practiced, no one can say that it is approached as seriously, en masse, as it once was or as it should be. With the introduction of "gay marriage" the deconstruction of marriage will be complete. And, while not yet widely accepted, some "elite" academicians are introducing ideas that polygamy and polyamory, and even pedophilia and bestiality are healthy pursuits.

Will this be the generation that throws off all sexual restraint? Will the next inherit a sexual ethic of ambiguity? How long can America last if she rejects a moral compass that points toward sexual purity before and after marriage? Not long, according to Unwin.

The message from J.D. Unwin's research is clear: Make sexual purity and marital commitment top priorities or face a steady decline and slow death. While liberals advocate sexual anarchy, they fail, or refuse, to recognize the unintended consequences of such a position -- consequences that will undermine any hope for America’s future.